In a well known Easter Egg in Star Wars Episode 1 (The Phantom Menace), there is a species shown seated in the Senate of the Republic which at least partially resembles... E.T. (of Spielberg's "E.T." movie).

I am referring to these aliens:

enter image description here

In addition, there is a lot of evidence that when combined with out out of universe knowledge, hints at the fact that E.T.'s race does in fact live in Star Wars Universe, as discussed in the answer to " Are E.T. and Star Wars in the same universe? " - including the fact that there is a planet with the same name as E.T.'s homeworld (known as Brodo Asogi) that exists.

My question is, however:

Is there any canon confirmation (as opposed to "well, what else could they be" inference) that the aliens with E.T.-like looks shown in TPM movie are indeed the same beings who live on the world called "Brodo Asogi" in the Extended Universe?

In other words:

  • We know SW EU contains aliens who are E.T. look-alikes.

  • We know that SW EU contains aliens living on a planet whose name is identical to E.T.'s home planet (Brodo Asogi).

  • But, do we have direct canon proof (as opposed to inference) that those 2 are the same race?

Possible confirmations could be, but not limited to, explicit statements from Lucalfilm officials, an illustration in the EU comic, book or a game; or the name mentioned in TPM script.

  • 1
    I've deleted the comments as they had gotten argumentative, and are also now obsoleted by the improvements made to the question. – user1027 Mar 9 '12 at 17:03
  • 1
    I'm not certain I understand why this was reopened, despite the "improvements". It's a shame I missed that comment discussion, apparently. Vtc. – Beofett Mar 9 '12 at 20:46
  • 2
    @Kristy there's an in-universe source in the other questions answer. The fact that you want to exclude that is irrelevant. It's not really worth rehashing this discussion. – Beofett Mar 10 '12 at 12:00
  • 3
    @Beofett No, there is not, which is why I asked the question. Excluding the ET stuff and sticking only to Star Wars works, are the aliens ever identified or shown in whole? We have the term Brodo Asogi in a SW work and aliens shown on screen. Are they ever linked in universe? If there is an answer that I have missed, please let me know. – Kirsty McNair Mar 11 '12 at 11:30
  • 3
    I don't see why this is a duplicate, it seems like a good question. – Julie B Mar 12 '12 at 21:53

Aside from a brief appearance in Star-Wars Episode 1 : The Phantom Menace, the other main reason why E.T. is believed to be from Star-wars Galaxy is from a passage in Cloak of Deception by James Luceno :

"Supreme Chancellor, your promise to respond to accusations of corruption leveled against Senator Maxim..." Valorum recognized some of the voices and many of the faces. Crushed against the left wall he noticed the delegate from New Bornalex. Behind him, Senator Grebleips and his trio of large-eyed, puddle-footed delegates from Brodo Asogi.

You must understand that those names for the "large-eyed, puddle-footed" aliens are not chosen at random.

When James Luceno wrote Cloak of Deception, he expanded on the in-joke by naming the character of Grebleips—"Spielberg" spelled backwards—and giving him the homeworld of Brodo Asogi, a name given to E.T.'s planet in the spin-off novel E.T.: The Book of the Green Planet.

So, the name of their representative was chosen after E.T.'s creator, and their home planet was chosen in a book in the E.T. franchise. Without those names, those creatures wouldn't have been linked to E.T. because the description is not detailed enough. But once the link has been made, we see that E.T. fits this description, and there's no evidence to break or even weaken this link.

| improve this answer | |
  • 4
    Excellent summary. +1 – DVK-on-Ahch-To Mar 9 '12 at 16:26
  • @DavRob60 With respect, I think you have missed my point. I don't deny that the term Brodo Asogi is used in a licensed ST work. I am asking if the term in the book has ever been linked to the aliens pictured above, without relying on out of universe knowledge. From what I understand, we have that term in the book, and aliens seen on screen, but the two are never linked in universe. There is a good out of universe explanation and evidence that they are linked, I am asking for any in universe evidence to link them. – Kirsty McNair Mar 11 '12 at 11:29
  • @DavRob60 To the contrary, the description you added is exactly the type of thing I am looking for. All your out of universe explanations are irrelevant, your answer should only focus on that description. I don't have an unreasonably high standard of proof, but it's important you understand what I am asking. – Kirsty McNair Mar 12 '12 at 11:05

To add to DavRob's otherwise excellent answer:

Even leaving aside out-of-universe proof (e.g. articles discussing the crossover) mentioned by DavRob, the answer is a qualified "yes" based on overwhelming circumstantial evidence. To be more specific:

  • No, there is no in-universe canon statement unequivocally stating that the ET-looking aliens in the movie are the same species as the aliens living on Brodo Asogi planet whose Senator is Grebleips.

    Such a statement can not possibly exist as it would likely open both Lucas's empire and Spielbergs into possible legal/financial complications - a mere homage/gag is not worth the trouble for their money making machines.

  • However, the circumstantial evidence is overwhelming enough that, had this sort of evidence been presented in a court case, I would have been fully convinced of the identity match.

To restate the above as an analogy:

  • facial identification (which, obviously, is a LOT less distinct between individual humans than between different species) is considered a fully reliable evidence in modern legal system. Being picked from a lineup of almost-identically looking humans is enough of an evidence to be convicted for a crime

  • So why is being picked out of a lineup of very distinct looking species NOT convincing enough for you given the breath of other corroborating circumstantial evidence presented both in my original answer, AND in DavRob's answer above?

What your doubts seem to be is a legal equivalent of: "yes, I know that the defendant's face looks 100% like one on the VCR tabe depicting the crime, I know that his name matches the name spoken by the accomplice and overheard by witnesses, and I know that he was previously overheard to be planning a similar crime. BUT, since there is no DNA evidence, I will assume that the crime was commted by evil doppelganger and vote to acquit".

By the way, another circumstantial evidence NOT listed by DavRob:

  • based on everything you know about US IP system, is it remotely possible that a major motion picture could use a likeness of an iconic distinct looking character from another major motion picture without a high profile IP lawsuit, unless there was an explicit OK from both franchises?
| improve this answer | |
  • 2
    Well said! There comes a point when denying the circumstantial evidence is just absurd and can't be done without a huge amount of hand-waving and closing your eyes and sticking your fingers in your ears. – Tango Mar 9 '12 at 16:19
  • 1
    @TangoOversway there is a difference between in universe evidence and out of universe evidence. You are convinced by the latter, I am asking for the former. I'm kind of surprised you don't see understand the distinction on this site of all sites. – Kirsty McNair Mar 11 '12 at 11:31
  • 1
    @KirstyMcNair: I've said this many times, please read this article on Star Wars canon. "In-universe" does not mean only G-Level canon. In Star Wars, there are five levels of canon and, bluntly, if you understood this and what is accepted, you would not be saying a lot of what you've been saying. The answers to your question are telling you to just accept it, people on Meta say the same, and everyone has said this is a duplicate and your question has been answered. So could you just accept that and move on, please? – Tango Mar 11 '12 at 15:50
  • 1
    @TangoOversway I do understand the levels of Star Wars canon and I'm sick of your condescending tone. You keep repeating yourself without stopping to think for a second. There is a visual ref not named and a name in a SW book not pictured. They are not linked IN UNIVERSE, only out of universe with knowledge from show creators and stuff from ET's universe. The question is still upvoted despite all the downvotes so not everybody agrees with you as you try to make it seem. I will certainly move on as it is futile trying to ask this question given how religiously you are defending your belief. – Kirsty McNair Mar 12 '12 at 11:08
  • @KirstyMcNair: Interesting how you're right and everyone else on this site is wrong. – Tango Mar 12 '12 at 14:50

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.